Re: "Size Balanced Tree" - more efficient than any known algorithm?
- From: Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:50:58 -0800
"sqybi" <sqybilly@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Surely, SBT is faster than normal BSTs
In what context? If your data arrive in random order, I doubt
any kind of balanced tree will be faster than an unbalanced tree,
because you spend unneeded time doing balancing. See
http://benpfaff.org/papers/libavl.pdf
--
Ben Pfaff
blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://benpfaff.org
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: "Size Balanced Tree" - more efficient than any known algorithm?
- Next by Date: Re: Do Write Once TM's Halt?
- Previous by thread: Re: "Size Balanced Tree" - more efficient than any known algorithm?
- Index(es):
